House Republicans are trying to wrap their heads around the idea of ordering the sergeant-at-arms to take Attorney General Merrick Garland into custody, as Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) says she will force a vote to keep him locked up. “inherent contempt” for Congress.
Luna’s promise is yet another headache for GOP leaders, who plan to file a lawsuit in D.C. next week to enforce Garland’s subpoena.
Republicans voted Garland in contempt of Congress earlier this month for his refusal to provide audio recordings of President Biden’s October interview with special counsel Robert Hur about his handling of classified documents. The Justice Department provided a written transcript of the conversation and Biden claimed executive privilege over the tapes.
The dramatic idea of a sergeant-at-arms detaining the attorney general caught some members off guard and raised questions about its prudence and feasibility.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said on Fox Business that although he votes in favor of the measure, he does not consider it necessary.
“I don’t think anyone understands how this is going to work. The last time it was used, members of Congress rode horses to this building where I am now,” Comer said.
It’s unclear whether Luna’s resolution would succeed with the GOP’s slim majority. At least two moderate members of the Republican Party, Reps. John Duarte (R-Calif.) and Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), say they will not support the inherent contempt measure.
Duarte supported the traditional contempt resolution for Garland earlier this month, but said he would not do so due to Luna’s inherent contempt impulse.
“I don’t think we should move forward with this,” Duarte told The Hill, criticizing the use of privileged motions and adding, “I don’t think they’re the best way to operate.”
“I just can not [be] we support individual members to escalate an effort of inherent contempt to then arrest him at the Department of Justice and bring him back into confinement,” Duarte said of Garland. “I mean, this is an extraordinary measure and I don’t think it’s something we should do lightly.”
Joyce — the only Republican to oppose holding Garland in contempt of Congress earlier this month — signaled he would also vote against pushing Luna for inherent contempt.
“I think you could deduce from my first vote where I would be on my second,” he told The Hill.
Republicans who support the measure, however, see it as a way to exercise lost power in Congress.
“Congress, in carrying out its oversight functions, was ignored… Congress and the American people we represent were disrespected. So we’re here to say ‘enough is enough,’” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said at a news conference supporting Luna’s resolution on Wednesday. “I understand this seems extreme. It seems extreme to handcuff the AG and drag him here.”
Luna has not yet raised the privilege issue for his resolution, which would require GOP leaders to act on the issue within two legislative days. This could include voting on the content of the measure, or presenting the issue or sending it back to committee, effectively killing it. On Wednesday, Luna said he was waiting until GOP turnout was high enough for him to succeed on the House floor.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) engaged in several arguments with Luna on the House floor this week.
“We are going to file a lawsuit next week against the Department of Justice to enforce that the subpoena will go to the district court here in D.C.,” Johnson said at a news conference Wednesday. “In the meantime, there are a lot of different ideas and discussions and people are debating about how we can get access to these tapes.”
While Congress has often snubbed officials, the more blunt tool that allows for arrest and detention by the House Sergeant at Arms is rarely used.
That’s in part because House rules offer little guidance on how to conduct the process — a factor further complicated by Garland’s FBI protection.
“It’s not entirely clear how she would do this because she doesn’t introduce a process in her resolution,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.).
“It’s a completely ridiculous resolution. Basically, it would unleash power without restrictions and without process.”
Luna resolutioninstructs the Speaker of the House to “issue a warrant directing the Sergeant at Arms or the Sergeant at Arms’ deputy to take into custody the body of Attorney General Garland wherever found” and bring it to the House to answer its questions.
Democrats aimed to revive the tool during the Trump administration, when then-Attorney General Bill Barr defied a subpoena.
But the issue led Lieu to later sponsor his own bill to clarify the process, which currently states that Congress has the power to arrest a “recalcitrant witness” and must hold a trial, but specifies little else.
“It’s a set of procedures on how to use inherent contempt, which gives due process rights that every American has and honors those rights. That was the aim of the legislation. Congresswoman Luna’s resolution is just a random thing that has no process, which is basically ‘take an American and keep that person in custody’. This is completely ridiculous,” Lieu told The Hill.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) dismissed the idea as “Anna Paulina Lunacy” during another hearing.
During a press conference on Wednesday, Luna noted that those held for inherent contempt were not always held in the “guard rooms” that have been used to hold prisoners.
“The last individual who was detained for basically violating Congressional authorities was actually put up in a very nice hotel,” Luna said.
Inherent contempt has not been used since 1934, when William MacCracken, the first aeronautics regulator, stationed himself at the Senate sergeant-at-arms’ house over the weekend, refusing to leave. After a judge later ruled his arrest legal, MacCracken spent a night at the Willard Hotel.
For Luna’s part, she doesn’t believe any formal arrest will be necessary.
“Ideally, what would happen is this would pass, Garland would come forward and we could hold a hearing here in the House of Representatives. I don’t care if they want to put it, whatever, [Rep. Jim] Jordan is in charge of this, but allow us to conduct the investigation,” Luna told The Hill.
“Every other American — if you’re subpoenaed, if I’m subpoenaed — every other American has to do this, but he was given special privileges.”
And despite some anger from GOP members, several moderates support Luna’s idea, seeing it as a way to further highlight their desire to obtain audio of Biden’s interview with Hur.
Rep. Marc Molinaro (NY) — one of 17 House Republicans who represent a district Biden won in 2020 — said he is “hopeful” the Judiciary Committee process to secure the recording will be successful. But if not, he said, “escalation is necessary.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who signed Lieu’s bill, defended Congress’ power to use inherent contempt but criticized Republicans for moving forward.
He argued that Garland turned over a transcript of Biden’s conversation with Hur and is immune from prosecution for withholding the audiotapes, as Biden claimed executive privilege over the materials.
“It’s a rusty tool. You know, it hasn’t been used in almost a century. So we have to figure out how to do that,” he said.
“But bad cases make bad laws, and this is a terrible case to try to revive inherent contempt, because there is simply no contempt on the part of the defendant who is responding to the charge.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
